remesh

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the return format but fails to state whether the original object is modified, if the operation is destructive, or any performance implications. The information is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, concise at two paragraphs. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from slightly more detail on behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (implied by return description) and a moderate number of parameters, the description is fairly complete. However, it omits whether the remesh modifies the object in place or creates a new one, which is important for understanding side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'voxel_size' (smaller = more detail, only in VOXEL mode) and listing mode options. It also describes the return dict. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, 'object_name' is not elaborated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Remesh an object' and the goal 'create a clean topology'. It is specific enough to distinguish from general mesh operations like subdivide or boolean, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dyntopo, subdivision). There is no discussion of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.